The Legislature is being urged to pass a law setting a blood-level limit that determines when someone is driving under the influence of marijuana.

Members of a study group made the recommendation Tuesday. They were split, however, on what level of THC in the blood would show impairment, with some members saying the scientific community is divided on the issue and uncertainty could lead to false convictions.

How to deal with impaired drivers is likely to become a more pressing issue as Maine considers joining four other states and the District of Columbia in legalizing marijuana for recreational use. A group is collecting signatures to get a proposal to legalize recreational use on the November 2016 ballot.

The working group was convened by the Legislature’s Joint Standing Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety in response to a bill submitted by the secretary of state. The measure would make it a crime to drive a car while having a THC level of 5 nanograms or more per milliliter of blood.

Other recommendations include setting a THC blood level to determine intoxication when marijuana is combined with alcohol, prohibiting drivers under 21 from having any THC in their blood while driving, and allowing license suspension of at least a year for young drivers who test positive for THC unless they are medical marijuana patients.

OTHER STATES SET THC LEVELS

The group unanimously supported the use of approved, preliminary breath-alcohol testing devices by police officers to determine if a driver is intoxicated, and suggested that the number of specially trained drug recognition officers be increased.

The 20-member working group included police, prosecutors, representatives of the medical marijuana industry and marijuana legalization advocates.

Maine’s law against operating under the influence – OUI – already prohibits driving a motor vehicle while impaired by marijuana, but there is no specific breath or blood-level limit like there is with alcohol.

So far, six other states have set legal limits for the concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol – or THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana – in the blood. Colorado, Washington and Montana have set an intoxication level of 5 nanograms or more of THC per milliliter of blood. The amount of THC in a driver’s system would be determined with a blood test.

Recent research into the effect of marijuana use on drivers is mixed, although many studies indicate drivers are less impaired by marijuana than by alcohol and tend to make fewer risky choices than drunken drivers. The National Institute on Drug Abuse maintains that marijuana significantly impairs judgment, motor coordination and reaction time, but other research shows drivers impaired by marijuana overcompensate by driving more slowly and avoiding passing other cars.

There is no simple roadside test for marijuana similar to the breath test used to determine blood-alcohol content. Police officers currently can use a drug recognition exam on the roadside – which includes examining the eyes – to detect impairment from drugs. But some say they need better tools to stop drugged driving as the culture becomes more accepting of marijuana use.

TOUGH TO SET IMPAIRMENT LEVEL

David Boyer, a group member and marijuana legalization advocate leading the push for a 2016 legalization vote in Maine, said it is worth noting that the group did agree on many aspects of the recommendations, but there wasn’t consensus when it came to the science behind determining impairment. He said some group members are concerned that regular marijuana users could be falsely convicted for driving while impaired because they build up a tolerance to THC. A heavy medical marijuana user, for example, could carry a THC level of 5 nanograms per milliliter and show no signs of impairment, he said.

“The science is clear with alcohol that .08 (percent) blood content means the vast majority of the population is impaired,” he said. “We don’t want patients that are perfectly aware and sober to be charged with DUI just because their nanogram level is above 5, which is somewhat of an arbitrary number.”

John Pelletier, chairman of the Criminal Law Advisory Commission, said the group engaged in a productive process despite “wrestling with a new area of the law.” He disagreed with the majority consensus that a level of 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter gives permissible inference that a person is intoxicated. He said some studies reviewed by the group indicate that 5 nanograms is “not an appropriate level,” while other studies fail to demonstrate a statistical link between THC in the blood and increased crash risk.

“If the science is uncertain but as a matter of policy we move in that area, the first attempt should be conservative,” Pelletier said.

Here at MaineToday Media we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion.

To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use. Click here to flag and report a comment that violates our terms of use.

David687

I’m sure criminal defense lawyers will be in full support of this. Money in the bank for them.

Fake Name

And more costs for the taxpayer, who’s gotta pay to prosecute all of these frivolous charges.

unclejunebug

Maine is too poor to prosecute all but tje most public crimes which they must or face bad publicity.

Brian Kelly

Gee then,

Maybe the state could use an additional source of tax revenue while spending less on prosecuting marijuana consumers?

Legalize. Don’t Criminalize.

Nationwide!

RedFaced1

I’m curious to hear more details about this plan.

A regular medical marijuana user will have THC in their blood regardless of whether or not the smoked/ingested anything that day.

Fake Name

Yup. Smoke an 1/8 of weed you’re gonna test hot for about 30 days…

The governments own Department of Transportation did it’s own study and found that stoned drivers were as safe and sometimes safer than sober drivers.

How about we start testing for pharmaceuticals? How many stoned people on narcotic pills, anti-anxiety, and anti-depressants are on the highways each morning? Let’s give them a driving test and see how well they do. Where is THAT study?

tet1953

They are completely winging this. No one has a clue and they are just making stuff up.

sheshell59

I’ve noticed the most dangerous thing for drivers to be is angry or stressed out. Do they have a blood level for that?

Fake Name

“GO!” **HONK**

“godDa__! GO YOU F__ MOR__”

**HHOOOONNKKK**

“OH for F__ Sakes! I’m going around!”

SQqueeeeeaaalllllll
KAAAABOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!

Then I get out: “Yeah officer, he was honking and screaming out the window but the other direction had a green light and I was waiting to turn right. They tried to go around and that’s his brain over there under the 18 wheeler.”

tet1953

Years ago I read a news article about a lawyer in California who had great success getting drivers off on charges of operating while stoned. He did so by citing two government studies; I do not have the specifics but one was the highway safety folks. Both studies found that smoking cannabis does not impair driving.
Some informal testing was done on Sanjay Gupta’s first cannabis special, on a driving course overseen by a driving examiner. He stated that he witnessed nothing that would take anyone off the road.

Fake Name

I was stoned when I took my driving test at 17. Passed it with a perfect score.
That was 20 years ago, I’ve never had an accident, and I don’t get tickets. I stop at all the stop signs, I obey the speed limit, and I look twice before pulling out; just in case there is a motorcycle I didn’t see, bicycler, pedestrian, or unicorn in the way.
Did I say unicorn out-loud? Now you could be wondering if that’s the craigslist kind or the magical kind. Take your pick but if either exists that’s pretty magical.

ehem

…..Anyway, that looking twice has saved a few accidents over the last 2 decades of driving.

Oh yeah, and I’m the guy going 20 through the school zone when it is flashing 25….because that’s what everyone should do. At the very least, I’m a roadblock between the kids and soccer mom behind me slamming the grande coffee and jamming makeup on her face in the rearview.

Les Finesse

Well, there ya go, Stoney, if you’re doing 20 mph in a school zone, you are speeding. The limit is 15 mph. Put down the bong.

jontomas

Is that the best you can do? – No wonder the fraudulent marijuana prohibition is going down in flames.

Adam_Romero

I chronically used Marijuana and drove for a living for 13 years. Logged over 450 000 miles “under the influence” of the demon weed. Never got a ticket. Never had an accident. Never called out from work.

I wouldn’t have tried doing that for even one day had I been drinking alcohol! People with no experience can say what they want, but Marijuana doesn’t effect your cognitive motor skills the same way alcohol does. Especially for regular users.

notspot

Will they take and process the blood during a routine traffic stop?

DeeperDish

You just want to arrest marijuana consumers.

According to a study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (June 2015), “Drivers with blood concentrations of 13.1 ug/L THC, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana, showed increased weaving that was similar to those with a .08 breath alcohol concentration, the legal limit in most states.” That is double, almost triple, the 5 ng/ml which you think “would be essentially a license to drive stoned,” and yet their driving is comparable to the legally accepted standards of driving. And since marijuana impairment is mitigated by individual tolerance, drivers with 5ng/ml are not necessarily impaired.

What? No. He’s saying it’s stupid to try and arrest people based off this blood test.

There’s no way an inaccurate test like this could be admissible in court. It’s far too easily challenged.

Regardless, you and Ed Wood are on the same side. By arguing with him, you’re preaching to the Choir but not listening to their song.

I’m stoned right now so it pains me to say this. Put down the bong.

Ed Wood

Yup, you’re stoned. I hope you’re not driving in your current impaired state.

Ed Wood

You either did not read, or did not understand Dr. Hartman’s study, especially page 10, where she described why your interpretation of her data is invalid. If you don’t understand science, perhaps it’s best if you don’t try to use it to bolster your arguments.

jontomas

Wait a minute. – WHO has shown there is a significant problem with drivers impaired by marijuana? – WHY are we trying to ‘fix’ a problem that doesn’t exist? – This nonsense is all just based on someone’s irrational fear. NIDA is a rabidly prohibitionist agency that has been desperately funding research for years, trying to find some significant harm of marijuana to prop up the fraudulent prohibition. – They have found NONE.

Marijuana is not alcohol. The preponderance of the research shows marijuana consumption is NOT a significant cause of auto accidents.

In February, the Drug and Alcohol Crash Risk report, produced by the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found that while drunken driving dramatically increased the risk of getting into an accident, there was no evidence that using marijuana heightened that risk. In fact, after adjusting for age, gender, race and alcohol use, the report found that stoned drivers were no more likely to crash than drivers who were not intoxicated at all.

Adam_Romero

Exactly . Out of all the horrible accidents you read about, you rarely, if ever, hear of one contributed to somebody who has only consumed Marijuana. Almost always, the driver is found to have been using alcohol and or narcotics WITH Marijuana.

Stel-1776

Cannabis does cause some impairment, however studies have shown that consumers tend to overestimate this impairment, and that they compensate for it with added caution. Alcohol tends to do the opposite, consumers perceive their impairment to be less that what it actually is and often become overconfident, aggressive, and careless. [Robbe and O’Hanlon. 1993; Robbe. 1995]

To find out how cannabis use affects crash risk overall, in 2015 the U.S. government completed the largest case controlled study to date regarding DUI of cannabis and crash risk. It involved over 9,000 cases and controls spanning a 20-month period. It found that cannabis use while driving is not associated with increased crash risk once adjusted for confounding variables such as age, race, gender, and the presence of other drugs, including alcohol:

“This analysis shows that the significant increased risk of crash involvement associated with THC and illegal drugs shown in Table 3 is not found after adjusting for these demographic variables.”

Further, they found that cannabis did not add to the crash risk for drivers under the influence of alcohol:

“As was described above, there was no difference in crash risk for marijuana (THC)-positive drivers who were also positive for alcohol than for marijuana (THC)-positive drivers with no alcohol, beyond the risk attributable to alcohol.”

They found that alcohol greatly increased crash risk:

“at moderate alcohol levels (0.05 BrAC) risk increases to double that of sober drivers, and at a higher level (0.10 BrAC) the risk increases to five and a half times. At a BrAC of 0.15, the risk is 12 times, and by BrACs of 0.20+ the risk is over 23 times higher.”

It is clear that DUI of alcohol is far more dangerous than DUI of cannabis. That said, at some point one could potentially be high enough to significantly increase crash risk, something roughly the equivalent of 0.08% BAC, and DUI laws should reflect that, and be based on actual impairment, not unscientific “per se” limits such as this low 5ng/ml limit. However it is rare for anyone that high (0.08% equivalent) to want to actually drive a car, whereas it is commonplace for someone very drunk to attempt to drive.

Good post. – The one thing you left out is that while alcohol consumers think they become better drivers and so drive more aggressively, marijuana consumers are very aware of when they have consumed too much and 99 percent of the time, prefer not to drive – and don’t. – It is only on the rare occasion when they are in a situation where they must drive, that they do so and adequately compensate by being extra cautious.

I don’t know if the number 99% is correct or not, but the tendency is certainly there. I’m concerned about the exceptions who kill and maim innocent victims. Our current laws and jury pools make it extremely difficult to convict those drivers of vehicular homicide or vehicular assault due to DUI. Consequently, their victims are victimized once again.

Ed Wood

You’ve done some nice research. But I urge caution in how you interpret some of the studies referenced. The Compton 2015 study did not find, “cannabis use while driving is not associated with increased crash risk…” The study failed to find a risk, which is not the same as finding there is no risk. As the author pointed out, ” While the findings of this case control study were equivocal with regard to the crash risk associated with drug use by drivers, these results do not indicate that drug use by drivers is risk-free. ” Part of the problem was that the study was not well designed to detect the impact of marijuana on crashes. Yes, the study had exquisite controls, but the study itself was badly flawed.
This was a voluntary study. All drivers involved in crashes were not tested, only those who volunteered to be tested. So the most that can be claimed is that controls were not significantly different from drivers in crashes who volunteered to be tested. Think about that.
The study cohort included both innocent victims as well as those culpable for the crash; this help dilute and mask any effect of marijuana consumption.
The study used a biological assay that could not distinguish between recent marijuana consumption, known to be risky, and past consumption, known to be non-risky.
The study was conducted in a locale that has been shown to have a lower level of drug impairment than the national average.
Colorado’s crash fatalities are now rising, but neither the rise nor the prior decline can be attributed solely to marijuana legalization. The controlling factor was not so much effective legalization in 2014, but rampant commercialization in 2009/2010. And the factors that led to the decline in crash fatalities included a reduction in driving due to the Great Recession, safer roads, and safer vehicles. Too many factors are in play to cite only one as the cause of the earlier decline and current rise in traffic fatalities.

Stel-1776

Testing for substances was mandatory for all crash drivers and was done 24/7. Controls had a 96.7% participation rate. Even if some controls declined participation because they were high, this would only strengthen the relative risk of DUI of cannabis, so the actual risk ratio could be less than what was reported in the study.

I did not say the study found that using cannabis has no impact on crash risk, it just found that it is barely detectable, far less than that of alcohol even at the legal limit 0.08% BAC.

An extensive 2013 review of 66 studies regarding crash risk and drug use found that cannabis was associated with minor, but not statistically significant increased odds of injury or fatal accident:

The study concluded: “By and large, the increase in the risk of accident involvement associated with the use of drugs must be regarded as modest. … Compared to the huge increase in accident risk associated with alcohol, as well as the high accident rate among young drivers, the increases in risk associated with the use of drugs are surprisingly small.”
[Elvik R. Risk of road accident associated with the use of drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from epidemiological studies. Accident Analysis Prevention. 2013. Review.]

I have not seen final data suggesting that Colorado traffic fatalities have risen, any data for 2015 at this point is preliminary. The main point I am making is that legalization will not result in “skyrocketing traffic fatalities” as so many have predicted.

Ed Wood

It’s nice to communicate with someone who is on top of the facts. But consider the following: Participation rate of controls is impressive, but hardly relevant, since they outnumbered test cases by 2:1. Participation rate of test subjects was unknown. That’s why I say that they only found little difference between controls and test subjects that agreed to be tested. What would you expect? This study suffers from the classic shortcoming of other voluntary studies in that regard. It’s fair to say that the impact of marijuana on crash risk WAS not significant different in that study, but it is not fair to say that the impact of marijuana on crash risk IS not detectable. The author’s very words even contradict that statement.

Rune Elvis’s 2012 metastudy should be compared with Mu-Chen Li’s 2011 review of 2,960 studies and Mark Abridge’s 2012 review of 2,975 studies. Both meta analyses arrived at the conclusion that the odds ratio is about 2 for marijuana (2.66 for Li and 1.92 for Asbridge). Some studies were lower, others higher, but generally, I think that most researchers agree that the odds ratio is in the neighborhood of 2 for marijuana. That’s far less than the odds ratio for alcohol where we have good data showing odds ratio as a function of BAC. That’s important, and can be used to shut down some of the hyperbole of alarmists. The fact is that marijuana is impairing, but when used alone, is less impairing than alcohol, based on current data. There’s no merit to overstating the case.

Less reported are the effects of marijuana and alcohol combined. What evidence we do have tells us that the combined effects are at least additive, and may be synergistic. Results differ, depending on the assay techniques of the researchers. Yet all that I know of agree that estimates of odds ratio are at least double that of alcohol at .08 BAC.

Stel-1776

You have valid points.

As mentioned in Compton 2015, many previous studies had poor controls. When only including well-controlled studies, the risk is lower than 2. Even if the relative risk were to be as high as 2, this needs to be put into perspective:

•Having two or more passengers also increases crash risk by two. [McEvoy et al. 2007]
•Speeding by 6 mph increases crash risk by four times. [Kloeden et al. 1997]
•Cell phone use increases crash risk by four times (fatal and non-fatal). [McEvoy et al. 2005; Redelmeier & Tibshirani. 1997; McEvoy et al. 2007]
•Texting increases crash risk by eight to twenty-three times (fatal and non-fatal). [Drews et al. 2009; Olson et al. 2009]
•Tobacco smokers have a 1.5 times increase in risk for accidents over non-smokers (fatal and non-fatal). [Brison. 1990]
•Drivers with a legal BAC of between 0.05% and 0.07% have a four to ten times greater risk of being in a fatal accident. [Zador et al. 2000]
•Drivers impaired on alcohol at 0.09% BAC have more than an eleven times greater risk of being in a fatal single vehicle accident. [Zador. 1991]
•Drivers impaired on alcohol between 0.10 and 0.14% BAC have a forty-eight times greater risk of being in a fatal single vehicle accident. [Zador. 1991]

Other factors also need to be considered. There is some evidence that legal cannabis reduces alcohol dependence, and may reduce drunk driving, which could offset any potential increase due to cannabis impairment.

“The first full year after coming into effect, [medical marijuana] legalization is associated with an 8 to 11 percent reduction in the fatality rate.”
“We find that the legalization of medical marijuana is associated with reduced alcohol consumption, especially among young adults.”
[Anderson et al. Medical Marijuana Laws, Traffic Fatalities, and Alcohol Consumption. Journal of Law and Economics. 2013]

The 5ng/ml per se limit proposed here is arbitrary, and is far more restrictive than 0.08% BAC. For reducing traffic fatalities overall, resources can be better spent. There is too much focus on cannabis, many even go so far to say it should not be legal for anyone under any circumstances because some use it when behind the wheel, which I find absurd and inconsistent with our legal system.

Ed Wood

You didn’t mention age or illness, both of which are risk factors as well.

I concur that the emphasis on marijuana impairment is misplaced. I am a champion for emphasis on drug impairment, which is a broader and more difficult factor to deal with. The data show a much higher risk to innocent victims by polydrug abusers than from users of marijuana alone. Polydrug abusers include those on marijuana and alcohol combined.

I caution you to not rely upon the Anderson/Rees study that frankly is so bad that it give the term “bad science” a bad name. They relied on FARS data which do not adequately or properly capture DUID data. The database was never designed to capture DUID data and NHTSA cautioned researchers to be wary of reliance on that database for DUID studies [Understanding the Limitations of Drug Test Information, Reporting and Testing Practices in Fatal Crashes, DOT HS 812 072].

During the period studied, traffic fatalities declined in nearly all states, and that had nothing to do with marijuana. The 8-11% drop reported was accurate, but cannot be attributed to marijuana since the states studied reported registered marijuana card holders as varying between 0.5% and 3% of their driving population.

The 5 ng/ml standard proposed in Maine is indeed arbitrary and cannot be supported by science. But it is not more restrictive than .08% BAC. Multiple studies from Sweden, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Washington confirm that the majority of drivers arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of marijuana test below 5 ng/ml. The range is 44% to 90% testing below 5ng/ml in whole blood. In contrast, a study in Florida of 25,000 drivers showed a mere 11.5% testing below .08 BAC and 5% testing below .05 BAC.

The reason for this is rooted in biology. Blood is not impaired by either marijuana or by alcohol. Only the brain is impaired by these two substances. We test alcohol as a surrogate for testing what’s in the brain, since the latter requires an autopsy. For alcohol, blood is an excellent surrogate. It rapidly establishes an concentration equilibrium among the various body tissues, including blood and brain. Not so with THC, since it is lipophilic. Over 90% of THC is cleared from blood within the first hour after smoking, as THC is sequestered into highly perfused fatty organs like the brain. THC concentrations are almost always higher in the brain than in the blood. Proving and characterizing this is difficult since it’s not easy to recruit volunteer subjects for autopsies!

Stel-1776

I meant that the 5ng/ml limit is more restrictive in that even the highest levels of THC, much greater than 5ng/ml, are not likely to increase crash risk much more than that of 0.08% BAC.

Ed Wood

You may be right, but that can’t be readily demonstrated, since the THC level when tested forensically can never represent the THC level in the blood at the time of the triggering incident (arrest or crash), much less represent the THC level in the brain. So any attempt to demonstrate your argument would be based on irrelevant data.

This is but one reason why any per se limit for drugs is doomed. Other reasons include tolerance, individual variations in response, polydrug complications, impairing and non-impairing metabolites, etc.

Far better would be to wean the judicial system from its reliance on per se levels, relying instead upon identification of symptoms of impairment combined with proof of presence of impairing substances known to cause that observed impairment. Sure, that’s more complicated. But it’s something that can be supported by science, which cannot be done with drug per se levels in blood.

Irresponsible drivers are already on our roads, and they will drive while intoxicated regardless of their drug of choice’s legality.

Therefore, legalizing marijuana will have little to zero impact on the amount of marijuana impaired drivers on our roads.

The same thing applies to people being under the influence of marijuana on the job.

Responsible people do not go to work impaired, period. Regardless of their drug of choice’s legality.

unclejunebug

Actually your assertations are challenged ny recent events:
Colorado’s tourist boom has been directly linked to legal cananis by Colorado U. Economists.
And Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood killer Richard Dear moved from NC to CO because dope was legal, during his ramoage he did have a high level in his system, i forget how high. Dear was stopped when an armored police truck drove thru a wall. Oh dear!

Brian Kelly

Two things.

1) What does ANY of what you’ve said have to do with the topic of marijuana legalization not leading to more marijuana impaired divers?

2) Marijuana is not “dope”. By calling it that, you only make it that much easier for everyone to see your ignorance, along with the anger, and resentment you hold towards this natural plant and it’s users.

If anything, you can say that booze is the real “dope” because it makes people do the dumbest things, often become violent, and then blackout and not remember all the havoc caused by the booze, like true “dopes”

Go ask your local street drug dealer for some “dope”.

You’re not going to get marijuana, guaranteed!

jontomas

Dear was a nut-case. Marijuana didn’t make him that way. Just sometimes, nut-cases consume marijuana, like they do milk, coffee and cereal. – Oh, dear. You had a fatal logic flaw.

Starfire359

The Crazed Milk Massacre!!!

Oh the Humanity!!!

We have to vote to Ban Driving under the Influence of Dairy Products!!!

Ausilia Evans

Unfortunately the laws aren’t in place to represent the majority. They are in place to stop those few, irresponsible, stupid, uncaring people who end up killing some innocent person. The responsible people shouldn’t be affected by any limit because they won’t be foolish enough to endanger others. I believe there needs to be some limit set (what I don’t know) so that when some idiot is on the loose. There is someway of holding him accountable. If there are no limits any lawyer could argue them out of charges. Just my opinion.

Christopher Gillman

Educate yourselves on what thc is and what it does before talking about driving laws. Particularly in what you think you know about what “impairment” means. Maine is decades behind. This is a joke.

massman

Just more political drama over a plant. There is minimal impairment, if not improvement, with driving amongst regular marijuana users. This is quite frankly a terrible idea which law enforcement will undoubtedly abuse to continue their support of failed prohibition policies. I would gladly volunteer to take a driving test after ingesting any amount of marijuana, and guarantee I’ll not only pass, but do better than on it than any sober law enforcement officier or public health official. Alcohol on the other hand will make you road kill.

Ed Wood

I don’t think one person’s opinion (yours) can overcome the vast amount of research that proves you wrong.

Brian Kelly

Ed Woods, In Response To “vast amount of creditable research…”

Creditable? You can’t be serious…

You mean N.I.D.A. based research which has all been gathered our prohibitionist government, during marijuana prohibition, in order to further justify that prohibition?

“While U.S. officials defend their monopoly, critics say the government is hogging all the pot and giving it mainly to researchers who want to find harms linked to the drug.

U.S. officials say the federal government must be the sole supplier of legal marijuana in order to comply with a 1961 international drug-control treaty. But they admit they’ve done relatively little to fund pot research projects looking for marijuana’s benefits, following their
mandate to focus on abuse and addiction.

“We’ve been studying marijuana since our inception. Of course, the large majority of that research has been on the deleterious effects, the harmful effects, on cognition, behavior and so forth,” said Steven Gust, special assistant to the director at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which was created in 1974.”

Ed Wood

Bryan Kellie,
I think you mean credible research? Not only is much (not all) of US research credible, so is the concurring research from Canada, Australia, France, Sweden, The Netherlands and other places that cannot be said to be under US domination.

So, you really, truly believe that all the research done by NI.D.A and other countries prohibitionist, anti-drug government agencies about marijuana is “credible” and to be taken as fact, do you?

B.T.W. – I think you mean Brian Kelly?….(Just saying…lol)

Brian Kelly

Unclejunebug,

Personal attacks?

Two more things…

1) Who’s opinion exactly were you quoting in that referenced article when you called marijuana “dope” and said this below?
“And Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood killer Richard Dear moved from
NC to CO because dope was legal, during his ramoage he did have a high
level in his system, i forget how high. Dear was stopped when an
armored police truck drove thru a wall. Oh dear!”

The science is not yet in on what amount of delta 9 in the blood constitutes “impairment” in the same way we know that a .08 BAC is indicative of too impaired to drive under the ifluence of alcohol for pretty much everyone. Anecdotal evidence suggests the 5 ng/ml of blood limit established in Colorado and other states may be too low. The debate is made even more difficult by greater subjectivity in the way people respond to delta 9 than they do for alcohol. At a given amount of delta 9 some may be too intoxicated to drive, others not.

What is known is that after smoking delta 9 rises and falls in the blood stream in a way that is not different than alcohol. Several hours after smoking delta 9 has fallen back to levels which are unlikley to be deemed intoxicating. If science can establish a THC level over which it is unsafe for pretty much everyone to drive there is reason to believe that a legal limit could be established.

In the absence of the science it may be premature to set a limit which can neither be easily measured, enforced nor defended in a court of law.

jontomas

I’ve seen that article before, thanks. – There is nothing in it that shows marijuana causes people mental problems as Dear had. – What in it makes you think that?

Max Mendez

How will their plan interact with the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Don’t they have to have some actual science, even if it isn’t completed, to support their position before criminalizing a state of being that legally applies to thousands of Mainers?

It’s too big a state to never drive, there must be some real evidence of value in this before it can become a law.

All the science says stoned drivers are roughly equal to sober drivers, all things considered.

jontomas

Anecdotal “information” carries little weight for various good
reasons. One is, you could be making it up. – No. The study didn’t
say anything about “links.” – It found that marijuana consumers have
no more accident risk than perfectly straight drivers.

That moronic attack piece by Ed Wood shows the level of your “knowledge.” – Jacob Sullum is one of the most respected journalists alive today. The NHTSA research finding no increase in accident risk by marijuana consumers is confirmed by other research.

You persist in misquoting Compton’s Research Note. Try page 9: “While the findings of this case control study were equivocal with regard to the crash risk associated with drug use by drivers, these results do not indicate that drug use by drivers is risk-free. The study limitations cited above, together with the findings of numerous other studies using different and complementary methods, need to be carefully considered before more definitive conclusions about drug use and crash risk can be reached.”

Jacob Sullum may be respected by some, but his breach of the standards of journalistic integrity should make anyone question that reputation. Remember Dan Rather and Peter Jennings were respected as well, until their well-known bias crossed the line into flagrant deception. Stullum’s piece is equally deceptive.